Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-19 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am aware of what the strings are used for. Can you point out the section of the license that says that copyright must be conveyed as a char string in the binary? I only see that it should be kept in the source file, which it is. Can you please

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-19 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Tue, Dec 19 2006, 11:15:58AM]: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am aware of what the strings are used for. Can you point out the section of the license that says that copyright must be conveyed as a char string in the binary? I only see that it

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-19 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Eduard Bloch [Tue, Dec 19 2006, 11:44:02AM]: I recommend you to read the related law: http://transpatent.com/gesetze/urhg.html In special UrhG §13: § 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft Der Urheber hat das Recht auf Anerkennung seiner Urheberschaft am

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Andreas Barth
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061217 18:19]: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a partial-true information. Please look in the relevant commentaries for e.g. §13 UrhG (that is

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Michael Ablassmeier
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Recently, Copyright notices have been removed from many files in the svn without permission from the Authors. This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g So, if this is in fact the problem that Joerg is talking about, there is no problem. No copyright notices have been removed. Some

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-18 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g So, if this is in fact the problem that Joerg is talking about, there is no problem.

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-17 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Are you going to tell me that Debian has no way to deal with malicious or unwilling maintainers? Note that this is the only reason for the cdrtools dispute from Debian. The mechanism is as I've described it previously. The current problem is

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-17 Thread Joerg Schilling
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Have I forgotten someone? You had the chance to ask me for the permission to remove this code. Instead, you decided to

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-17 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Sun, Dec 17 2006, 12:29:11PM]: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Have I forgotten someone? You had the chance to

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-17 Thread Joerg Schilling
You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-17 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did already explain recisely what the problem is. I've read the logs, and I still have no idea what you're talking about. What information do you need? Let me spell it out the process even more clearly: 1) Send mail explaining precisely what

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Joerg Schilling] I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the source before and after the change to see the difference. If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent changes. it would be easy to

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-16 Thread Sune Vuorela
On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. Until this bug, I had no clue about that what(1) existed. It does also only

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. Until this bug, I had no clue

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-16 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Dec 16 2006, 03:43:54PM]: Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-15 Thread Joerg Schilling
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stop abusing the Debian Bug tracking system! First and foremost, the maintainer(s) of a Debian Package are wholy responsible for determining the state of bugs assigned to their packages in the BTS unless

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-15 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Joerg Schilling] I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the source before and after the change to see the difference. If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent changes. it would be easy to understand what happened. We have removed a

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-15 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First and foremost, the maintainer(s) of a Debian Package are wholy responsible for determining the state of bugs assigned to their packages in the BTS unless overridden by the tech-ctte. If they did act

Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit

2006-12-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h *Joerg Schilling [Sun, Dec 10 2006, 10:38:15PM]: First, sccsids are unused code. They have been removed for technical reasons, and because no usual user and no regular program seem to use them (see below). And they are disturbing the QA work by triggering compiler warnings. But